July 2, 1958

By Keith Thursby Times Staff Writer The Times published detailed results of the Chavez Ravine ballot initiative that showed just how close the vote was. The June 3 measure to approve a baseball stadium for the Dodgers passed by nearly 26,000 votes and was favored in nine of the 15 City Council districts. Four of the six districts that voted against the stadium contract were in the San Fernando Valley where, according to The Times' story, "sectional opposition to downtown attractions is fostered by some interests." That sure seemed like a line better suited for an editorial.  But anyone reading the coverage had to realize by now that The Times was clearly on one side of the debate. Councilmen John Holland and Patrick McGee, two frequently quoted opponents of the stadium deal, served districts with the biggest margins against the Dodger contract. Holland's 1970 obit by Times staff writer Doug Shuit included a quote that summed up his view of the contract. "It was the biggest steal of public lands and money since the trade for Manhattan Island with the Indians for a basket of beads," Holland said. keith.thursby@latimes.com

Comments

[Richard H]

Of particular interest is the vote in the Ninth District. Ed Roybal, the Ninth District Councilman, had been probably the most vocal opponent of the Chavez Ravine deal with the Dodgers. The voters in his district supported it by the largest percentage for any council district according to that clipping. His vocal opposition to the Chavez Ravine deal didn't seem to adversely affect Roybal's standing with his constituents.